Why is fascism happening?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's my personal take: Conservatives tend to operate on a platform of fear, and people with that mindset tend to elect authoritarian leaders because they think those leaders will protect them from the big scary immigrants or whatever the current boogeyman is.

A massive international study published in the Journal of Personality has found that people across the world are more likely to support authoritarian forms of government when they feel threatened by real-world dangers such as crime, poverty, or political instability. This pattern was observed across 59 countries, making it the largest cross-cultural test of its kind to date. The results also show that this relationship tends to be more pronounced among people who identify as politically right-leaning.

Authoritarianism, in psychological research, refers to a preference for strong leadership, strict social order, and obedience to authority, often at the expense of democratic principles like civil liberties and pluralism. The concept was originally developed in the aftermath of World War II to understand how ordinary people could come to support totalitarian regimes.

Over the decades, numerous theories have suggested that feelings of threat or insecurity—whether due to economic hardship, violence, or political upheaval—may trigger a psychological shift toward favoring more authoritarian governance. However, most previous research has been based on relatively small studies conducted in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies, raising concerns about whether the findings could be generalized to the rest of the world.

“There is a large literature on how authoritarianism rises from people feeling threatened, but that literature has focused almost entirely on conservatives in Western contexts. So my original inspiration was to evaluate the world-wide relationship between authoritarianism and threat for both conservatives and liberals,” said study author Lucian (Luke) Gideon Conway III, a professor at Grove City College and author of Liberal Bullies: What Psychology Teaches Us About the Left’s Authoritarian Problem – And How to Fix It.

o address these gaps, Conway analyzed data from the World Values Survey, a long-running global research project that collects information on political beliefs, cultural values, and social attitudes from representative samples in dozens of countries. He selected over 20 survey items related to different kinds of realistic threats, including personal and family-level threats like food insecurity and lack of access to medicine, neighborhood-level dangers like crime and police intrusion, political threats like voter intimidation or media bias, and general worries about war, terrorism, or unemployment. These items were combined into a cumulative threat index.

Authoritarianism was assessed using a scale measuring support for autocratic governance, asking respondents whether they favored leadership by a strongman, military rule, or technocratic decision-making without public input. Importantly, this scale is widely regarded as ideologically neutral, avoiding the bias seen in many earlier measures that equated authoritarianism with specific political ideologies.

The final sample included 84,677 people from 59 countries across six continents, with both WEIRD and non-WEIRD nations represented. Statistical models were used to assess whether perceived threat predicted support for authoritarian government while controlling for variables such as age, gender, education, income, and political ideology.

The results showed a consistent and robust association between threat levels and authoritarian attitudes. Individuals who reported greater personal, neighborhood, or political threats—or who simply expressed more general worry about threats—were more likely to support authoritarian forms of governance. This held true even after accounting for people’s political ideology or how extreme their views were. In other words, feeling threatened was linked to stronger support for authoritarian leadership regardless of whether someone identified as politically left or right.

However, Conway found that the effect of threat on authoritarianism was somewhat stronger among right-leaning individuals compared to those on the left. While threat predicted authoritarian attitudes across the board, it had a greater impact among conservatives.

The pattern also varied by cultural context. In WEIRD nations like the United States, Germany, and Sweden, the link between threat and authoritarianism was stronger than in many non-WEIRD countries. Still, every global region included in the analysis—ranging from South America to Sub-Saharan Africa—showed a statistically significant effect. This finding supports the idea that the psychological connection between threat and support for strong leadership is a broadly human one, not just a product of Western society.

“Across the world, people who report feeling threatened by things such as crime and poverty are more prone to want authoritarian leaders,” Conway told PsyPost. “That is true whether you are liberal or conservative, and it is true whether you live in a Western country (such as the United States or Western Europe) or a non-Western country. However, the authoritarianism-threat relationship is stronger for conservatives (versus liberals) and in Western (versus non-Western) countries.”

The findings support a “soft asymmetry” view by showing that realistic threats predict authoritarian attitudes across the political spectrum, but the effect is stronger among right-leaning individuals. This suggests that while both liberals and conservatives can become more authoritarian under threat, conservatives are more consistently responsive to such conditions.

“I have been a champion of what have come to be called ‘symmetrical’ theories of ideology,” Conway explained. “Those theories suggest that liberals and conservatives are psychologically similar but differ only in the content of their beliefs, and thus we would expect similar effects on both sides (hence the term ‘symmetrical’). However, the primary results for the threat-authoritarianism relationship around the world were not entirely symmetrical – they actually were larger for conservatives than liberals. Although the similarities are bigger than the differences, this gives pause to a pure symmetry theory.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that supports the theory that human psychology evolved to prioritize strong leadership during times of threat. A recent paper published in Evolution and Human Behavior also found that people in 25 countries were more likely to prefer dominant-looking leaders when they were asked to imagine a scenario involving war or international conflict. In that study, participants viewed faces manipulated to appear more or less dominant and consistently chose the more dominant face when under threat. The preference for dominance was found to be consistent across many countries, echoing the current study’s finding that perceived threat prompts people to favor authoritarian traits in leaders.

The findings support a “soft asymmetry” view by showing that realistic threats predict authoritarian attitudes across the political spectrum, but the effect is stronger among right-leaning individuals. This suggests that while both liberals and conservatives can become more authoritarian under threat, conservatives are more consistently responsive to such conditions.

“I have been a champion of what have come to be called ‘symmetrical’ theories of ideology,” Conway explained. “Those theories suggest that liberals and conservatives are psychologically similar but differ only in the content of their beliefs, and thus we would expect similar effects on both sides (hence the term ‘symmetrical’). However, the primary results for the threat-authoritarianism relationship around the world were not entirely symmetrical – they actually were larger for conservatives than liberals. Although the similarities are bigger than the differences, this gives pause to a pure symmetry theory.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that supports the theory that human psychology evolved to prioritize strong leadership during times of threat. A recent paper published in Evolution and Human Behavior also found that people in 25 countries were more likely to prefer dominant-looking leaders when they were asked to imagine a scenario involving war or international conflict. In that study, participants viewed faces manipulated to appear more or less dominant and consistently chose the more dominant face when under threat. The preference for dominance was found to be consistent across many countries, echoing the current study’s finding that perceived threat prompts people to favor authoritarian traits in leaders.

They genuinely don't know because no one in their Fox News/Newsmax echo chamber talks about anything negative regarding Trump.

Here's my personal take: Conservatives tend to operate on a platform of fear, and people with that mindset tend to elect authoritarian leaders because they think those leaders will protect them from the big scary immigrants or whatever the current boogeyman is. Also, I've heard it said that fascism is the natural end result of the free market, which is part of the reason why we need regulations to prevent oligarchs from seizing control of the government through things like lobbying.

Authoritarianism, and fear inducing reaction to it, is increasing regardless of where on the on the left/right spectrum (for what that's worth) we sit, if one alarms you more that's the weighting of your personal outlook.

And discussing the rise of "fascism" isn't the definition of fear based?

Authoritarianism, and fear inducing reaction to it, is increasing regardless of where on the on the left/right spectrum (for what that's worth) we sit, if one alarms you more that's the weighting of your personal outlook.

Left wing authoritarianism ultimately does lead to oppression, but this thread is about the rise of fascism in the west. At the core of western fascism is a) white supremacy b) immigration c) demographic shift and minority rights and d) fear of replacement.

Making America great again and far right patriotism is just code for ethnonationalism, anti-immigration, anti-diversity and sending the army into black dominated cities under guise of crime control or Ice enforcement to round up so called illegals (brown people) or anti-Diversity in government and schools, muslim ban (self-explanatory) is all an attack on minorities.

even tariffs in the US is pro-US anti-foreign actually paid for by US taxpayers in rising costs as locally made produced is more expensive, same as Brits experienced after Brexit, Farage lied, leaving the European union to make Britain "great again" made everything more expensive and made no difference to refugees and immigration. Biggest issue is fractured social divisions in cities in UK or US or even here in Australia. People are divided more than ever along political, racial, religious and class lines.

Pretending left wing authoritarianism is more dangerous under the guise of the old "boogyman" of red communism taking over in US or UK has never been or never will be a threat to you or I and you know it.

If it's not about race, then why hasn't Elon Musk been deported?

Our problem is reducing concerns about mass immigration at huge rates to just race or supremacy. What is wrong with being wary about the rate at which immigration is happening that is is disruptive? This isn't about supremacy or white, brown, asian... I would support every country being allowed to restrict the numbers of immigrants into their country.

Left wing authoritarianism ultimately does lead to oppression, but this thread is about the rise of fascism in the west. At the core of western fascism is a) white supremacy b) immigration c) demographic shift and minority rights and d) fear of replacement.

Making America great again and far right patriotism is just code for ethnonationalism, anti-immigration, anti-diversity and sending the army into black dominated cities under guise of crime control or Ice enforcement to round up so called illegals (brown people) or anti-Diversity in government and schools, muslim ban (self-explanatory) is all an attack on minorities.

even tariffs in the US is pro-US anti-foreign actually paid for by US taxpayers in rising costs as locally made produced is more expensive, same as Brits experienced after Brexit, Farage lied, leaving the European union to make Britain "great again" made everything more expensive and made no difference to refugees and immigration. Biggest issue is fractured social divisions in cities in UK or US or even here in Australia. People are divided more than ever along political, racial, religious and class lines.

Pretending left wing authoritarianism is more dangerous under the guise of the old "boogyman" of red communism taking over in US or UK has never been or never will be a threat to you or I and you know it.

There's a big difference between pointing out that something like fascism is a negative for society, and constantly stoking fear of something benign like immigration as a way to make people irrational so they'll submit to draconian policies. Like, do you not understand the difference between a good faith argument that seeks to address a legitimate problem and a bad faith argument that has an ulterior motive?

Whats a good faith argument? Is that like actually asking someone why people might be opposed to immigration, understanding their fears and concerns, and attempting to bridge whatever gap in knowledge, experience or else exists instead of just labelling them far-right?

If you thought Mexican immigrants were taking your jobs (the jobs that no American wants), wait 'til all the jobs Americans actually do want to work get taken over by Indians willing to do professional work for minimum wage.

what if I told you Most people "concerned with over-immigration" aren't racist and don't have a right wing, never mind far-right, agenda. But if you tell them over and over that they do - then demonise anyone who relates to their concerns such that no-one wants to touch the subject - then the only people who will listen to them of course are the very actors who you do despise. Thus you create the monster.

If it's not about race, then why hasn't Elon Musk been deported?